Abstract

Footnotes (208)

Using the URL or DOI link below will
ensure access to this page indefinitely

Based on your IP address, your paper is being delivered by:

New York, USA

Processing request.

Illinois, USA

Processing request.

Brussels, Belgium

Processing request.

Seoul, Korea

Processing request.

California, USA

Processing request.

If you have any problems downloading this paper,please click on another Download Location above, or view our FAQFile name: SSRN-id2245299. ; Size: 1164K

You will receive a perfect bound, 8.5 x 11 inch, black and white printed copy of this PDF document with a glossy color cover. Currently shipping to U.S. addresses only. Your order will ship within 3 business days. For more details, view our FAQ.

Quantity:Total Price = $9.99 plus shipping (U.S. Only)

If you have any problems with this purchase, please contact us for assistance by email: Support@SSRN.com or by phone: 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 585 442 8170 outside of the United States. We are open Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30AM and 6:00PM, United States Eastern.

Historically, few constitutional protections conjured more mutated conceptions in society than double jeopardy. The United States Supreme Court holds that the Double Jeopardy Clause embodies the freedom from successive prosecution and multiple punishments for the same offense. This case note focuses on the freedom from multiple punishments, specifically post-conviction merger of sentences.

In Najera v. State, the jury convicted Najera of twelve counts of improper sexual contact with his two adopted minor daughters. Six counts were for sexual assault; the remaining six counts were for felony incest. The trial court sentenced Najera to consecutive sentences for sexual assault and incest. Najera appealed, contending that the convictions for sexual assault and incest should merge for sentencing purposes. The Wyoming Supreme Court agreed and reversed the trial court, holding that the convictions merged and that Najera should serve his sentences concurrently.

This case note advances three arguments to illustrate that the Wyoming Supreme Court must revisit the merger analysis applied in Najera. First, the court's application of the merger test parallels a test that the United States Supreme Court overruled. Second, the Wyoming Supreme Court based the policy justification and structure of its merger analysis on Pennsylvania law that as subsequently abandoned. Finally, the correct merger analysis represents a tool of statutory construction used to determine whether the legislature intended to create distinct offenses. The merger analysis applied in Najera must be revisited.